Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 22, 2012 11:00pm-11:30pm PDT

11:00 pm
real estate business, that each one of you put on the building for a million, a million five. don't give me the argument we're trying to have low income housing, what we're doing is replacing low income housing with high income housing. finally the issue here is the residential design code has a lot of judgment issues in it. i quoted to you a lot of issues. it's not so much whether it's 15 feet or 14 feet or this, it allows a lot of discretion. the photos i showed to you, if this is what you want to approve, if that's what you want to approve because it may be technically within the design code, which i disagree with because of the judgmental characters, then what you are doing is making a vote for the way in which we are going to change the housing composition? san francisco.
11:01 pm
you can probably say, okay, well it's technically correct and it meets all the space requirements, but is that what this board wants to support as the kind of buildings it is using to replace more compatible buildings that all the neighbors in the area oppose. that's why i offered the board and i offer the board again the option of not choosing either/or but requiring that there be a mediation in which we would come to some accommodation as to the design and the height limits of this building that would meet the interests of all of the parties. so i ask you to vote in favor of that proposition. thank you. >> mr. stewart, before you sit down, i have a question or two. >> sorry. >> if it's more appropriate then mr. bleacher could answer these.
11:02 pm
i understand there was a community boards process previously. were you part of that? >> yes, i was. that was held in diamond heights in 2008. >> at any time were specific proposals put forward by the neighbors with respect to the height. >> yes. we did not have an architectural plan. we sat down with the architect at that time, said we would like to negotiate the height of the building so it could be along, a similar flow pattern from the street and we could modify the exterior facade to be more in context with the neighborhood and keep basically 90 percent of what they wanted to do. they declined to make any modifications except for an indentation for a light well in order to get the neighbors not
11:03 pm
to participate in an appeal. >> so you just brought forward concepts without specifics. >> well, they did not wish to negotiate. we said let's sit down and we'll talk about specifics. >> and they said no? >> that's correct. so we offer that as another solution --. >> that was my question, thank you. >> thank you, mr. blodget, we have rebuttal from you now. >> thank you, commissioners, i'd like to pick up with the questions you just started. the project has been revised. the project a stair, a penalty house and a roof. it had a parapet, it was higher. it didn't have a light well. when you put a light well in, you lose square footage. the penthouse was taken off, the one hour roof was put on, the floor to floor height was reduced, it's less than 9 feet floor to ceiling in the
11:04 pm
building. you'd like to have 9 feet so it was lowered to the extent possible. confusions were made. i would like to read from the project analysis from the planning department, just one paragraph, short paragraph. the requestor suggests that the design of the new building is not compatible with the design of the older buildings in the neighborhood. the proposed massing of the new building is well articulated in relation to the older buildings and the facade used is similar to older buildings. existing building is not an historic resource under ceqa. that's just one paragraph because i know design has been a major issue. the project sponsor has worked with planning department staff ultimately that's who i think we need to satisfy, obviously work with the neighbors but you can't listen to everybody.
11:05 pm
ultimately you have to come to a decision on design and that was what was made here. mr. stewart did show the rear facade. the project sponsor isn't happy with that facade either, quite frankly. he is shell shocked and gun shy. he would like to revise the year of the building. it's afraid if he files another permit to revise it he will land up here again and be held up another 4 months. i'm asking you commissioners it approve the demolition permit, approve the building permit, and we will still work with neighbors to make that rear more attractive. that's my promise to you. unless you have questions i think you've heard it all. design is an issue and the board is happy with the board. >> were you part of the community review process? >> i was not. i don't know
11:06 pm
what happened. >> you use the word concessions, were those confessions to planning or to the neighbors? it sounds it me like it didn't actually happen. >> you work with the neighbors first and then you come it planning. often the planning department looks out for neighborhood interests and the design guidelines are structured along those lines. >> so the concessions were not necessarily directly to any neighbor consideration. >> oh, the light well was for sure. but, again --. >> you were talking about reducing height from the desired 12 or 14 feet per floor to 9 feet. was that because you needed to meet the code versus -- and the footprint of the house i think you gave us an illustration where you didn't fill in everything that you could have but if i'm, just by eyeballing it, i don't know
11:07 pm
if you could have done the 12 to 14 feet floors. >> no, you couldn't have gone that high. again, thank you, that's true. >> thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, anything further? >> thank you, scott fisher, planning department. i believe they were on revision no. 7 for the plan, so they did make several revisions. i don't have a detailed log of what all those revisions were and why those revisions were made, but just to know there were several revisions made to the plans before they were issued. second, i think it's good it hear and i've mentioned the board is happy to hear modifications to the rear. getting into endless series of appeals, everyone's highlight, the beels if they were to adopt changes that would be put out
11:08 pm
in a special condition permit which is not appealable. if this board makes changes to the permit, that would not be appealable so make sure people are aware of that fact. >> while you are pick-up here i think you noted the regard with regard to planning, but it was a 3-3 level. >> at the planning commission, it was 3-3, so it was deemed approval, rather than approved. >> commissioners, the smater is submitted. >> i can start. >> go ahead. >> you know, contrary to i
11:09 pm
think -- stated by both sides, this particular board does not create policy, it reacts. it reacts to specific appeals. and you know the actions of this particular board acts as a check on those things that have been issued to see basically whether we feel error or abuse occurred in the permit process. in this particular instance, i'd say two things about it. and probably my comments are going to be reflective of, in a similar vein that the planning
11:10 pm
commission did not have resounding direction one way or the other. if you look at the massing of this building the neighborhood does have some variety in the massing between not only some of the older structures but some of the new ones. the massing of this particular structure comes real close in my opinion to be on the edge of what should or should not have been approved, especially when i realized this is top floor of the rear of the building. however, stl far enough along in terms of being egregious versus i'm not quite sure, i would quite take it to that point.
11:11 pm
textually, in terms of the design, it also shows some variation from the predominant pattern in the neighborhood and that there is not a lot of articulation to it. there is some articulation to the facing, however there is not a lot of detail. is it also taken to the point where it fails to satisfy? no, not quite, either, so it's sort of in between those processes. i understand where on the one hand the project sponsor needs to do certain things for his business and i understand where the neighbors feel that there is an interest on their part to have something that perhaps is a little bit more reflective of the type of buildings that were there.
11:12 pm
however, the issue is whether a newer building can fit in ai monk older buildings. this one does and it does not so it's sort of in the catch-22. the question for me is whether there was significant error on the part of whether the departmental or whether it's an individual basis, to say is it or is the entitlements not deserved? and i can't quite go that far. >> i'm going to point out what we have before us is an appeal of permits. we're not dealing with abuse of discretion or error, what we are looking at is a did de novo review. >> i understand that, mr.
11:13 pm
bryan what i wanted to say to what level does it take in terms of our review to be able to say yes or no to entitlement. i'm not prepared to deny the entitlements at this point in time. >> i feel very differently from my colleague and co-commissioner. i think the design and in standing alone the building is visually not an issue for me necessarily, it's where it's placed. and i think the failure on the part of the parties, i mean the project sponsor, to really engage with the neighbors perhaps given how out of place that structure looks and the height is extreme relative to its neighboring adjacent -- not withstanding what is across the street, and i think that was a good point to make as to what the height
11:14 pm
variation is, but that is a beautiful neighborhood and it's a really sweet part of town and i think putting something that sort of stands out like a sore thumb, not withstanding that it's standing alone is not an unattractive building, it's an attractive building. it just doesn't belong there. i think also the fact that the commission below couldn't vote in either direction strikes me as p an endorsement of the design. in fact, i think for that reason i don't find that to be -- deemed approval is not persuasive to me. it got, it went through the process, a process by default and i think
11:15 pm
it is incumbent upon this board to take steps to maintain the beauty of our city and to make sure that our neighborhoods are -- it dosment -- doesn't mean new construction can't happen. of course. i wouldn't oppose the demolition permit, it's the building permit that i think needs great modification. so that's where i'm leaning. >> being no. 3 in this particular is not great. i'm very torn. i mean, everything i've heard from the planning department is it meets the guide lines, it meets the
11:16 pm
height, it satisfies everything the city has laid out but the neighborhood. but when you get down to some of the particulars i understand the concerns. certainly the rear part of it i do although, again, i know that it's legal. i know of much worse instances were people have had to look at the rear of buildings that weren't there before. again, i certainly would have no problem with the demolition permit. i guess i'd like to see poe potentially some more discussion about the design but i don't know how we go about that. >> given what the permit holder's representative stated with respect to the back facade and there is room for discussion with the neighbors or whomever, not withstanding the promise and commitment to this board i think it would be, as mr. sanchez indicated,
11:17 pm
should there be a mutually agreed upon resolution we could put that in a permit that would not be appealable, i mean a decision that would not be appealable. so my inclination, if the parties are so inclined, would be to allow time for that discussion to take place and to come back after a good faith effort was made it try to come to some compromise. that's just my inclination, i don't know -- get that from everyone here. >> you know, in this instance i'm not sure i would support that for the following reason: the nature of what i've heard tonight and from the brief
11:18 pm
indicate that probably the difference of opinion on the massing and the number of stories is probably quite substantial. i think that the, i accept that it's probably a difficult time to get financing and therefore if the entitlements were in place perhaps the developer, the builder, is going to be more willing to take another look at a couple of elements, you know. so i'm not sure i'm prepared to allow negotiation to be the defining point to this. i'm not sure it's going to work anywhere. well, i have pretty strong feelings. i would make a motion to revoke the permit. i would make a motion to grant the demolition but revoke the building permit. oh, i'm getting some feedback here.
11:19 pm
>> thank you, under the planning code we would not be able to approve the demolition of a permit without the replacement structure. if the board were to revoke the new structure, we would have to revoke the demolition as well ?oo ?a okay, then i will revoke both. >> so, commissioners, just as a reminder, we need 3 votes to take any action. with the lack of 3 votes, then the motion would fail and if there's no other motion made that passes, then the two permits are upheld as a as a matter of law. >> then i'm going to change my motion. i will revoke the motion and substitute with a motion to continue the matter for the reasons i stated
11:20 pm
earlier about allowing parties to have a good faith effort to sit down and actually discuss the issues. i can't do that either? is that --. >> and we have also a missing commissioner tonight. >> with all due respect to the commission, and i appreciate vice president fung's concerns about what may be an inability should it be continued to come to a resolution because there may be a bright line issue about the number of stories. so i don't know if the commission has or the board has any consensus on an appropriate number of stories that might give direction to the parties. if the board would support 4 stories and continue the item then that may give direction to the parties about how to resolve it. i agree with commissioner fung i think it, a wasted opportunity if it's continued to come back because one wants 3 and one wants 4, but if the board with support 4 stories and tells the parties that it's an articulation of
11:21 pm
the rear, which at least the project sponsor has indicated they would be willing to do. sorry for interrupting ?oo ?a no, that's helpful. if you think that would speed up the discussion -- we haven't had a discussion about 3 our 4 floors, we can lop off a floor, do something like that. what do you think? >> i would have thought one approach could have been to create a setback in the rear. and i think that would have probably been part of what planning would have normally done. however, at this point i would
11:22 pm
support 4 stories. >> that's what's current, right? >> yes. >> you would support 4 stories, even though that's extremely high. >> well, and the reason is because there are a number of different structures of different heights in that area. >> not in that way. >> well, yeah, equally as massive. >> okay, i'm not going to -- i got to say my piece. i would support 3 stories. >> i'm on the 4 side. >> you are? okay. >> one other reminder to the board, your practice has been in the past if the missing commissioner's vote would make a difference in the outcome that the matter gets continued. so just another piece of information to consider. >> although at this point it doesn't appeal that that's --. >> not necessarily. >> for example, the motion to
11:23 pm
continue was proposed and failed because of a 2-1 vote. let me hear it from you, if i move to continue so thepers have an opportunity, you seem inclined to go in that direction, but if we did that and we needed another commissioner's vote for purposes of continuing then wae would continue it anyway just to get a vote on that point it allow them to have the discussion. correct? >> that's been your practice. >> yeah, that's been aur practice. >> i think at this point we might as well just give it our -- i probably would not support a continuance. >> right, but i think commissioner lazarus would. and we don't know what commissioner hartado would do, so i think we should continue
11:24 pm
for purposes of allowing commissioner hartado to weigh in on this question. >> we don't have to continue it very far out, she'll be back soon. >> there's a possibility you're not here next week, is that correct? >> yeah, there is a possibility. it's a slim possibility but it's a possibility. >> i mean did we need to continue to a date specific? >> yes, i think so. can you put this matter on the first one on the 24th? i could come for that for sure. is it possible to prioritize in that way? >> yes, it's your calendar.
11:25 pm
set it however you like. >> you're talking about next week. >> thex week. that way we can make a decision and not spend too much time -- in the meantime if people want to sit down and talk to each other, that would be a great opportunity, too. then we'd make some progress, have a different conversation next week. i'd like to make the motion to move as per our practice, move to continue this until commissioner hartado is hear it weigh in on the question of a more substantive continuance. >> that's all 4 of the appeals. >> all 4 of the appeals, yes. and move it to october 24th. >> no. >> no one's called the role yet. >> i didn't say that, i was just --. >> we have a motion from the president to continue all these
11:26 pm
appeals to next week, october 24th. public hearings have been held and closed and it's to allow time for commissioner hartado to participate in the final vote. (roll taken). >> of course commissioner hartado is absent. the vote is 3-0, this matter is continued to next week. all matters are continued to next week. >> president hwang, there is no further business. >> we are adjourned. (meeting adjourned).>> thank ys
11:27 pm
morning. my name is bob hayden. i am with the department of the environment and pleased to be the emcee of this event. you can tell from the display that this has something to do with some electric vehicles. so, i would like to start the program with our first presenter. and introduce to you a man who is certainly no stranger to bringing clean technology to san francisco and electric vehicles, are mayor, ed lee. [applause] >> thank you, bob. >> you for your leadership. good morning, everyone. we are going to be talking about something that i have been very
11:28 pm
interested in, and that is mobility. the ability to have technology work for you, like this microphone. we have worked hard for a number of years. i had the privilege of working with gavin newsom in the past to during his administration to create the electric vehicle infrastructure for the city and began the conversation and the collaboration with the other counties to bring an electric vehicle corridor. it signals our efforts to support the creation of
11:29 pm
infrastructure to the electric vehicle industry. of course we have encouraged the private automobile creators to join us. today is a wonderful opportunity to do that with a bmw. any of you who noticed the labels in this city, you will certainly noticed the popularity of bmw as a corporation, not only a great company but one that is also on the cutting edge of the use of technology. i want to thank them and welcome them to not only the electric vehicle stage, which they have been working on, but also to this great program they are about to introduce, the drive now and park now technology. joined -- joining us in the car joined -- joining us in the car sharing program for their


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on